One, Inc. v. Olesen
| One, Inc. v. Olesen | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Decided January 13, 1958 | ||||||
| Full case name | One, Incorporated, v. Otto K. Olesen, Postmaster of the City of Los Angeles | |||||
| Citations | 355 U.S. 371 (more)
241 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1957)
|
|||||
| Prior history | Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Pro-homosexual writing is not per se obscene. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Per curiam. | ||||||
 |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. ONE, Inc., a spinoff of the Mattachine Society, published the early pro-gay "ONE: The Homosexual Magazine" beginning in 1953. After a campaign of harassment from the U.S. Post Office Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Postmaster of Los Angeles declared the October, 1954 issue obscene therefore unmailable under the Comstock laws.[1]
The magazine sued. The first court decision (March 1956) sided with the post office, as did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (February 1957). To the surprise of all concerned, an appeal to the Supreme Court was not only accepted, but citing its recent landmark decision in Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) the Court, in a terse per curiam decision, reversed the 9th Circuit without even waiting for oral arguments.[1] The decision read in its entirety:
"241 F.2d 772, reversed.
Eric Julber for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard and Samuel D. Slade for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476. [355 U.S. 371, 372]"[2]
This marked the first time the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled on free press rights around homosexuality. The justices supporting reversal were Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker.[1]
See also [edit]
References [edit]
- ^ a b c Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (8 May 2002). "ONE Standard of Justice". Courting justice: gay men and lesbians v. the Supreme Court. Basic Books. pp. 27–50. ISBN 978-0-465-01514-6. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
- ^ "ONE, inc. v. Oleson 355 U.S. 371 (1958)". justia.com.
Further reading [edit]
- Burroway, Jim (January 13, 2008), "Today In History: A Spunky ONE And The U.S. Post Office", Box Turtle Bulletin, retrieved 2008-01-14
- Mencimer, Stephanie (July 2001), "Review: Courting Justice", Washington Monthly, ISSN 0043-0633, retrieved 2008-01-14, describing
- Index of ONE Magazine issues
- Homosexuality and Free Speech: The 1958 ONE Case
- Rasmusen, Eric (September 13, 2006), "Homosexuality and Free Speech: The 1958 ONE Case", Eric Rasmusen's Weblog, retrieved 2008-01-14
- William N. Eskridge, Jr. (1997), "Privacy Jurisprudence and the Apartheid of the Closet, 1946–1961", Florida State University Law Review 24 (4), retrieved 2008-01-14 "The Post Office determined that the October 1954 issue was obscene and lewd, based upon three articles within the issue: (1) Sappho Remembered, a story of a lesbian's affection for a twenty-year-old "girl" who gives up her boyfriend to live with the lesbian, was considered obscene because it was "lustfully stimulating to the average homosexual reader"; (2) Lord Samuel and Lord Montagu, a poem about homosexual toilet cruising on the part of several British peers, was considered obscene because of "filthy words" within it; and (3) an advertisement for The Circle, a magazine containing homosexual pulp romance stories, was thought to lead the reader to obscene material."
- Bianco, David (August 2, 1999), "One Magazine", Planet Out, retrieved 2008-01-14
